On Sun, Jan 20, 2019 at 02:30:12PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > On Fri Jan 18 19, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 12:39:40PM -0700, Jerry Snitselaar wrote: > > > Alexey was following the example of tpm_tis_update_timeouts() which > > > returns true if the timeouts were updated, and otherwise returns > > > false. The bool here makes sense to me, but what rc would you suggest > > > in this case? > > > > Maybe the pattern used there is not that great then. > > > > The callback should simply be update_durations(chip), and it would do > > whatever updates needed and either return zero or -errno. And of course > > update durations_adjusted flag because that is needed in sysfs. > > > > /Jarkko > > Taking a quick look, they already track whether the adjustment > occurred in the tpm_chip struct, so that could be used instead for > what the bool return was being used for. I'll post a patch for the > timeout updates code, and work with Alexey to rework his patchset. Awesome, thank you! /Jarkko
